2023-24 NBA Season Discussion

[Doctor MJ]

NBA players tend to think that whatever was in the cultural waters when they came of age IS basketball, and to have no understanding for how thinking has shifted back & forth over the longer history of the game.

I'm going to be a dissenting view on this. Sure for some of them this is true. But there are plenty of exceptions. The Lakers new head coach a great example. James Harden another. Al Horford and Brook Lopez big man examples. Your guy Steve Nash has been very vocal about this even as he failed as a coach for reasons besides understanding the direction the game was going.

In fact I would say a much higher percentage of players adjust than do basketball fans who tend to be much more stuck in the generation where they first found basketball. It's the main reason Jordan and Kobe topics get so off tracks all the type. These fans just can't possibly imagine a possibility where their hero wasn't playing optimally at all times. Players certainly respect these former greats and hold them in high reverence, but also don't try and play like them knowing better.

Good to have dissenting views.

I will say right from the jump, we've got a point of debate because I believe you're saying that Redick understands the deeper past, and I don't think he does. In fact, he's basically made a point to act like an elementary school kid bullying players from the deeper past to give himself more credibility with modern fans and players.

This YouTube video from the Wilt Chamberlain archives responds to Redick and I think really makes clear that Redick either never did his due diligence (likely) or is just choosing to tee off on the older players.

Watch on YouTube

Note that it is about Dolph Schayes who I personally have always been skeptical about, so this isn't a situation where my prior takes come off looking great either, but when you can see people do serious video analysis on these older players, I think you tend to get more well-rounded opinions.

Redick and myself have both knocked Schayes for the lack of scalability to the modern game in his set shot, which is what so many writings in the past focused on when talking about how he succeeded. But with the aid of the (still small) video we now have, we can see that the Schayes' set shot didn't actually represent the fundamental limitation for Schayes' that it did (or at least we think) for others.

I'll leave some of the other commentary to the video itself but in a nutshell, Redick literally thinks he's a way better player than Schayes because of FG% and the superiority of shot technique, but I think it's pretty clear that if Redick went and played back then, he wouldn't be able to do what Schayes did.

As I say all of that: I think Redick is very, very smart when it comes to understanding the state of the art of NBA basketball - way ahead of most other NBA players, way ahead of most other NBA commentators, ahead of most NBA coaches, and way, way, way ahead of me. I'm not sure whether that's going to make a difference for the LeBron era Lakers - are they even underperforming given the talent on their roster at this time? I'm not sure - but I'm excited to see what they try.

Now, as you mention other guys it seems like you're more focused on players jumping on trends than understanding deeper basketball history, and I understand why you saw that as the thrust of my post. Certainly guys like Horford & Lopez are clear cut examples of guys who pivoted mid-way through their career toward new trends, and in doing so extended their in-demand career by more than half a decade.

Re: players more likely to adjust than fans. That's true, but of course, I'm not talking about comparing the average of one group to the average of another. I'm talking about the interaction between players stuck in their ways and analysts with historical awareness, where the players act as if those who can't play as well as themselves must be wrong because players know better.

I'm talking about the need for epistemological humility and a curiosity about what others understand that you don't. I don't dismiss the perspectives of these players - they know things I don't. And I would suggest that all of us seek to have that combination of curiosity and humility if we want to learn the game better than we already do.

Back to your average fan: Thing is here, most fans want to already-know the game. Meaning, they want to be the guy in conversation with their friends who can have a respected opinion. But this is not the same thing as wanting to be a student of the game. Most of these folks would readily embrace being a student if they had access to a teacher they respect - a Jordanite will probably listen with an open mind to anything Jordan says, for example - but if you're not someone with that pre-established respect, then differences in viewpoint become a competition where the goal isn't to find mutual enlightenment by helping each other see we couldn't see just on our own, but to find a way to get through the conversation with ego intact.

And of course: We non-average fans convince ourselves of our own immunity at our own peril. We should expect that the only way we can keep from falling into the same trap is to assume we ARE falling into that trap too, and work to escape it.

[Doctor MJ]

On the broadest of levels we have to remember that this is normal for humans. We try to "bottle" the successes we see as simple logic rules, and in doing so, we lose nuance.

Of course. I was just talking about this in another thread, about imitation in the absence of talent as a common cycle in the NBA. Tempo, 3pt shooting, The Next (whomever), etc.

I'll also say: This is the essence of how someone like us can dare to suggest that NBA players and others close to them are missing things beyond analytics. NBA players tend to think that whatever was in the cultural waters when they came of age IS basketball, and to have no understanding for how thinking has shifted back & forth over the longer history of the game.

Ayep. People are very much rooted in their adolescence in a lot of ways, and it limits thinking very notably without effort paid to perspective and history.

Indeed, the reference to the role of adolescence is dead-on. We clearly have a tendency toward aesthetic imprinting in our adolescent years which then can seal shut around itself. How many people continue to listen primarily to the music that was popular in their own adolescence rather than actively seek out later innovations? In my experience, that's most people, and those of us that manage not to do this do so largely because it's an area we get specifically fixated by. I can claim to not be glued simply to the music of my adolescence...but there are bound to be many other areas I haven't paid as much intention to where my perspective is essentially a default setting based on the cultural waters I swam in at that age and earlier.

[tsherkin]

Indeed, the reference to the role of adolescence is dead-on. We clearly have a tendency toward aesthetic imprinting in our adolescent years which then can seal shut around itself. How many people continue to listen primarily to the music that was popular in their own adolescence rather than actively seek out later innovations? In my experience, that's most people, and those of us that manage not to do this do so largely because it's an area we get specifically fixated by. I can claim to not be glued simply to the music of my adolescence...but there are bound to be many other areas I haven't paid as much intention to where my perspective is essentially a default setting based on the cultural waters I swam in at that age and earlier.

Yeah I'm with that. I have moved beyond just the music of my time as well, but I had some help in that regard and music is very much an area of specialty focus for me, too. There are tons of things I've had to work hard at to move beyond as far as notions which embedded themselves early, and I'm sure more of which I am not yet aware. It's pretty natural. We have to fight not to stagnate. In basketball, there are some things I've been grappling with in terms of player evaluation to move beyond as well, things which served me well when I began but which don't punch with quite the same power these days, haha.

It's work, it's difficult to even identify such areas a lot of the time, let alone to improve upon and move beyond them. Most aren't willing to do so even if they acknowledge them.

And in recreation, there is often lower motivation to bother. And the less investment folks have, so much the worse. If we watch a game or two a week and idly chat on a message board, then there's less incentive to care and work at it in the context of discussing the NBA, for example, than if we're tirelessly fiending over the sport. Doing interviews, projects, re-evaluating long-held assumptions in group discussion, etc. It's a big thematic difference in the broad strokes between the GB and the PC Board, though we are all yet still vulnerable over here. Pet observations, older arguments, preferences for this stat or this modality or the other, etc.

[parsnips33]

That Lebron added Jokic to his rivals list is pretty crazy timeline wise.

I just wish the Bron Fans had the same fire for Jokic they had for Steph

[sp6r=underrated]

Indeed, the reference to the role of adolescence is dead-on. We clearly have a tendency toward aesthetic imprinting in our adolescent years which then can seal shut around itself. How many people continue to listen primarily to the music that was popular in their own adolescence rather than actively seek out later innovations? In my experience, that's most people, and those of us that manage not to do this do so largely because it's an area we get specifically fixated by. I can claim to not be glued simply to the music of my adolescence...but there are bound to be many other areas I haven't paid as much intention to where my perspective is essentially a default setting based on the cultural waters I swam in at that age and earlier.

Yeah I'm with that. I have moved beyond just the music of my time as well, but I had some help in that regard and music is very much an area of specialty focus for me, too. There are tons of things I've had to work hard at to move beyond as far as notions which embedded themselves early, and I'm sure more of which I am not yet aware. It's pretty natural. We have to fight not to stagnate. In basketball, there are some things I've been grappling with in terms of player evaluation to move beyond as well, things which served me well when I began but which don't punch with quite the same power these days, haha.

It's work, it's difficult to even identify such areas a lot of the time, let alone to improve upon and move beyond them. Most aren't willing to do so even if they acknowledge them.

And in recreation, there is often lower motivation to bother. And the less investment folks have, so much the worse. If we watch a game or two a week and idly chat on a message board, then there's less incentive to care and work at it in the context of discussing the NBA, for example, than if we're tirelessly fiending over the sport. Doing interviews, projects, re-evaluating long-held assumptions in group discussion, etc. It's a big thematic difference in the broad strokes between the GB and the PC Board, though we are all yet still vulnerable over here. Pet observations, older arguments, preferences for this stat or this modality or the other, etc.

Staying in touch is harder to do as you age and it is very easy to fall off.

I used to do an hour commute both ways in my car up until 2015. And up until 2015, I was current with music because I hate talk radio and generally turned on the pop station. Once my commuting ended, I stopped listening to new music and fell out of touch. Pre-COVID, I used to go 30~ movies a year. While I never cared for the comic book movies, I was very interested in most new movies. Post-COVID, I stopped going and have fallen out of touch.

And that sort of thing can happen easily in sports. Frankly the NBA is uniquely vulnerable to it since the NBA sells the game to so many fans via hero-worship. The toll of aging makes hero worship much harder.

[tsherkin]

Staying in touch is harder to do as you age and it is very easy to fall off.

Oh, absolutely. And for a pile of reasons, without a doubt.

Work, relationships, other responsibilities. New hobbies sometimes. They all conspire to throttle the amount of time you have for certain things, unquestionably.

I used to do an hour commute both ways in my car up until 2015. And up until 2015, I was current with music because I hate talk radio and generally turned on the pop station. Once my commuting ended, I stopped listening to new music and fell out of touch.

And circumstance, absolutely.

And that sort of thing can happen easily in sports. Frankly the NBA is uniquely vulnerable to it since the NBA sells the game to so many fans via hero-worship. The toll of aging makes hero worship much harder.

Also true, no doubt.

It isn't easy to keep up. But there is more to it than just an issue of access, I suspect. We are neurologically different in our adolescence. And we are more malleable. Things hit a little harder in some ways. Emotional connection also alters things. All of that couples to changing access to make what we had romanticized to some extent later on, and for it to be more challenging to accept difference and change, especially if it undercuts in any way what we enjoyed in our youth.

[sp6r=underrated]

Staying in touch is harder to do as you age and it is very easy to fall off.

Oh, absolutely. And for a pile of reasons, without a doubt.

Work, relationships, other responsibilities. New hobbies sometimes. They all conspire to throttle the amount of time you have for certain things, unquestionably.

I used to do an hour commute both ways in my car up until 2015. And up until 2015, I was current with music because I hate talk radio and generally turned on the pop station. Once my commuting ended, I stopped listening to new music and fell out of touch.

And circumstance, absolutely.

And that sort of thing can happen easily in sports. Frankly the NBA is uniquely vulnerable to it since the NBA sells the game to so many fans via hero-worship. The toll of aging makes hero worship much harder.

Also true, no doubt.

It isn't easy to keep up. But there is more to it than just an issue of access, I suspect. We are neurologically different in our adolescence. And we are more malleable. Things hit a little harder in some ways. Emotional connection also alters things. All of that couples to changing access to make what we had romanticized to some extent later on, and for it to be more challenging to accept difference and change, especially if it undercuts in any way what we enjoyed in our youth.

Yup, I remember when the Great Recession hit. I was in my late, late 20s. I needed to start over so I did a cross country move to a city across the country where I knew no one and had been 1. And this was after another move 5 years ago to a new city, without contacts.

I plainly lack the life flexibility to do a similar move even though I have very good reasons for getting out of SF.

[tsherkin]

Yup, I remember when the Great Recession hit. I was in my late, late 20s. I needed to start over so I did a cross country move to a city across the country where I knew no one and had been 1. And this was after another move 5 years ago to a new city, without contacts.

Yeah, man. I feel that. I was in college when I first joined RealGM and younger that that by a lot when I first started following ball. I find it tougher to watch full games now than I used to, even when I have the time. I do shift work with long hours and often after a bad day on the ambulance, just can't motivate myself to dig in too deeply to sport. When I was younger and doing other nonsense, I actively filled my time with RealGM and basketball and stuff a lot more. These days, I spend my time at work, with my girlfriend, or playing music more than anything else. It's different than it was when I was consuming content at a voracious rate, subscribed to a whole bunch of places for access to data and just generally immersing myself in basketball.

And music can be the same thing, although I find that the ambulance has actually opened me up to more new music in the past couple years than I'd sought out on my own. I'm mainly a classical/prog rock and metal guy with some background in jazz and blues... but I write EDM of various flavors with one of the guys who trained me, I do some orchestral stuff because I met some people online in a music community, I've had partners who loved to listen to like 90s and early 2000s pop, a bunch of dancehall and things, etc. Access, exposure, and tons of time in the truck and amid other hobbies. It's sort of the reverse of what you were discussing with your commute to work, right?

I plainly lack the life flexibility to do a similar move even though I have very good reasons for getting out of SF.

That I'm sorry to hear, man.

[sp6r=underrated]

Yup, I remember when the Great Recession hit. I was in my late, late 20s. I needed to start over so I did a cross country move to a city across the country where I knew no one and had been 1. And this was after another move 5 years ago to a new city, without contacts.

Yeah, man. I feel that. I was in college when I first joined RealGM and younger that that by a lot when I first started following ball. I find it tougher to watch full games now than I used to, even when I have the time. I do shift work with long hours and often after a bad day on the ambulance, just can't motivate myself to dig in too deeply to sport. When I was younger and doing other nonsense, I actively filled my time with RealGM and basketball and stuff a lot more. These days, I spend my time at work, with my girlfriend, or playing music more than anything else. It's different than it was when I was consuming content at a voracious rate, subscribed to a whole bunch of places for access to data and just generally immersing myself in basketball.

And music can be the same thing, although I find that the ambulance has actually opened me up to more new music in the past couple years than I'd sought out on my own. I'm mainly a classical/prog rock and metal guy with some background in jazz and blues... but I write EDM of various flavors with one of the guys who trained me, I do some orchestral stuff because I met some people online in a music community, I've had partners who loved to listen to like 90s and early 2000s pop, a bunch of dancehall and things, etc. Access, exposure, and tons of time in the truck and amid other hobbies. It's sort of the reverse of what you were discussing with your commute to work, right?

I plainly lack the life flexibility to do a similar move even though I have very good reasons for getting out of SF.

That I'm sorry to hear, man.

It does blow but at my age starting over again is just way, way too risky, professionally and socially. There are things I like about CA but COL out here is awful. And the Bay Area COL is just absurd. I have co-workers who do 2 hours commutes for a 550k home.

If I understand how bad California was I never would have moved here.

[tsherkin]

There are things I like about CA but COL out here is awful. And the Bay Area COL is just absurd. I have co-workers who do 2 hours commutes for a 550k home.

If I understand how bad California was I never would have moved here.

Yikes, man. That doesn't sound fun at all

EDIT: Other than homes being so cheap, damn.

[sp6r=underrated]

There are things I like about CA but COL out here is awful. And the Bay Area COL is just absurd. I have co-workers who do 2 hours commutes for a 550k home.

If I understand how bad California was I never would have moved here.

Yikes, man. That doesn't sound fun at all

EDIT: Other than homes being so cheap, damn.

n Santa Clara County, the median home price hit $2 million for the first time — a record-breaking figure that surpasses even pandemic-era highs, April data from the California Association of Realtors shows. Meanwhile, in San Mateo County, the median sales price was $2.15 million — down from its peak of $2.4 million in April 2022, but up 9.1% from April 2023, when the median price was $1.97 million.

Across the nine-county Bay Area, prices were up 15.5% from last year, reaching a median sales price of $1.44 million. The median price climbed to $1.4 million in Alameda County, $940,000 in Contra Costa County, and $1.8 million in San Francisco.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2024/05/30/median-home-price-surpasses-2-million-in-these-two-bay-area-counties/

And to orient non-Bay Area folks Contra Costa isn't close to the best paying jobs. It is madness.

[tsherkin]

n Santa Clara County, the median home price hit $2 million for the first time — a record-breaking figure that surpasses even pandemic-era highs, April data from the California Association of Realtors shows. Meanwhile, in San Mateo County, the median sales price was $2.15 million — down from its peak of $2.4 million in April 2022, but up 9.1% from April 2023, when the median price was $1.97 million.

Across the nine-county Bay Area, prices were up 15.5% from last year, reaching a median sales price of $1.44 million. The median price climbed to $1.4 million in Alameda County, $940,000 in Contra Costa County, and $1.8 million in San Francisco.

Oh, I definitely read that wrong. I guess you meant that the 550k homes were at the distant commute sites. That makes far more sense, retrospectively. I was like "damn, that's so cheap relative to the asinine Toronto market!" But now I see what you meant. That's even worse than here!

[sp6r=underrated]

n Santa Clara County, the median home price hit $2 million for the first time — a record-breaking figure that surpasses even pandemic-era highs, April data from the California Association of Realtors shows. Meanwhile, in San Mateo County, the median sales price was $2.15 million — down from its peak of $2.4 million in April 2022, but up 9.1% from April 2023, when the median price was $1.97 million.

Across the nine-county Bay Area, prices were up 15.5% from last year, reaching a median sales price of $1.44 million. The median price climbed to $1.4 million in Alameda County, $940,000 in Contra Costa County, and $1.8 million in San Francisco.

Oh, I definitely read that wrong. I guess you meant that the 550k homes were at the distant commute sites. That makes far more sense, retrospectively. I was like "damn, that's so cheap relative to the asinine Toronto market!" But now I see what you meant. That's even worse than here!

It is legit nuts. I live in SF. SF has a median HH income of 130k, most of the City's buildings were built 100 years ago and a homelessness rate of 1%.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/homelessness-in-us-cities-and-downtowns/

And it now costs City Hall 1.2 million dollars to build a unit of housing.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/it-now-costs-more-than-1-2-million-to-build-a-17463355.php

[tsherkin]

n Santa Clara County, the median home price hit $2 million for the first time — a record-breaking figure that surpasses even pandemic-era highs, April data from the California Association of Realtors shows. Meanwhile, in San Mateo County, the median sales price was $2.15 million — down from its peak of $2.4 million in April 2022, but up 9.1% from April 2023, when the median price was $1.97 million.

Across the nine-county Bay Area, prices were up 15.5% from last year, reaching a median sales price of $1.44 million. The median price climbed to $1.4 million in Alameda County, $940,000 in Contra Costa County, and $1.8 million in San Francisco.

Oh, I definitely read that wrong. I guess you meant that the 550k homes were at the distant commute sites. That makes far more sense, retrospectively. I was like "damn, that's so cheap relative to the asinine Toronto market!" But now I see what you meant. That's even worse than here!

It is legit nuts. I live in SF. SF has a median HH income of 130k, most of the City's buildings were built 100 years ago and a homelessness rate of 1%.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/homelessness-in-us-cities-and-downtowns/

And it now costs City Hall 1.2 million dollars to build a unit of housing.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/it-now-costs-more-than-1-2-million-to-build-a-17463355.php

That's wild.

We're up over a million for the average home price. Our average income differs by quadrant. The north and the east are both above 100k, but the south and the west are both beneath. And yeah, houses are prohibitively expensive and even rent for things is brutal.

[sp6r=underrated]

Oh, I definitely read that wrong. I guess you meant that the 550k homes were at the distant commute sites. That makes far more sense, retrospectively. I was like "damn, that's so cheap relative to the asinine Toronto market!" But now I see what you meant. That's even worse than here!

It is legit nuts. I live in SF. SF has a median HH income of 130k, most of the City's buildings were built 100 years ago and a homelessness rate of 1%.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/homelessness-in-us-cities-and-downtowns/

And it now costs City Hall 1.2 million dollars to build a unit of housing.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/it-now-costs-more-than-1-2-million-to-build-a-17463355.php

That's wild.

We're up over a million for the average home price. Our average income differs by quadrant. The north and the east are both above 100k, but the south and the west are both beneath. And yeah, houses are prohibitively expensive and even rent for things is brutal.

I gotta admit I was surprised how bad Toronto has gotten given that the City is growing but not at a super rapid pace. Is there any unique reason Toronto's having such a hard time?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto#Demographics

[tsherkin]

I gotta admit I was surprised how bad Toronto has gotten given that the City is growing but not at a super rapid pace. Is there any unique reason Toronto's having such a hard time?

Horrible government, slum lords and foreign investors buying property are all contributing, among I'm sure other factors. And there is only so much available real estate. And then massive inflation of EVERYTHING, in general.

[Peregrine01]

It is legit nuts. I live in SF. SF has a median HH income of 130k, most of the City's buildings were built 100 years ago and a homelessness rate of 1%.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/homelessness-in-us-cities-and-downtowns/

And it now costs City Hall 1.2 million dollars to build a unit of housing.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/it-now-costs-more-than-1-2-million-to-build-a-17463355.php

That's wild.

We're up over a million for the average home price. Our average income differs by quadrant. The north and the east are both above 100k, but the south and the west are both beneath. And yeah, houses are prohibitively expensive and even rent for things is brutal.

I gotta admit I was surprised how bad Toronto has gotten given that the City is growing but not at a super rapid pace. Is there any unique reason Toronto's having such a hard time?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto#Demographics

Toronto is probably the fastest growing city in the G7. Canada added over a million people last year and probably 70% of them went to the GTA, which is probably up to >8 million people now.

But yeah, the problem of housing prices going through the roof in most global cities is some combination of:
1) High numbers of people moving into the city
2) NIMBY-ism among incumbent homeowners preventing supply or any form of density from being built

The only major city that I can recall has managed to contain housing costs is Tokyo, but the social contract there is very different there and housing is broadly not viewed as an asset.

[sp6r=underrated]

That's wild.

We're up over a million for the average home price. Our average income differs by quadrant. The north and the east are both above 100k, but the south and the west are both beneath. And yeah, houses are prohibitively expensive and even rent for things is brutal.

I gotta admit I was surprised how bad Toronto has gotten given that the City is growing but not at a super rapid pace. Is there any unique reason Toronto's having such a hard time?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto#Demographics

Toronto is probably the fastest growing city in the G7. Canada added over a million people last year and probably 70% of them went to the GTA, which is probably up to >8 million people now.

But yeah, the problem of housing prices going through the roof in most global cities is some combination of:
1) High numbers of people moving into the city
2) NIMBY-ism among incumbent homeowners preventing supply or any form of density from being built

The only major city that I can recall has managed to contain housing costs is Tokyo, but the social contract there is very different there and housing is broadly not viewed as an asset.

My working theory is nimbyism is as popular in "land poor" countries like Japan as it is in "land rich" countries like the US/Canada.

In the land poor countries the nimbys get rolled because the national govt., has no choice but to intervene otherwise you get chaos.

In land rich countries the national government doesn't intervene because they rely on safety valve regions. In the US it is Texas which is pro-housing. Not sure where it is in Canada.

[Peregrine01]

I gotta admit I was surprised how bad Toronto has gotten given that the City is growing but not at a super rapid pace. Is there any unique reason Toronto's having such a hard time?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto#Demographics

Toronto is probably the fastest growing city in the G7. Canada added over a million people last year and probably 70% of them went to the GTA, which is probably up to >8 million people now.

But yeah, the problem of housing prices going through the roof in most global cities is some combination of:
1) High numbers of people moving into the city
2) NIMBY-ism among incumbent homeowners preventing supply or any form of density from being built

The only major city that I can recall has managed to contain housing costs is Tokyo, but the social contract there is very different there and housing is broadly not viewed as an asset.

My working theory is nimbyism is as popular in "land poor" countries like Japan as it is in "land rich" countries like the US/Canada.

In the land poor countries the nimbys get rolled because the national govt., has no choice but to intervene otherwise you get chaos.

In land rich countries the national government doesn't intervene because they rely on safety valve regions. In the US it is Texas which is pro-housing. Not sure where it is in Canada.

Japan is fairly unique in that homes are razed after 20-30 years and replaced anew. Homeowners also don't have a lot of power to stop development so you have an immensely dense city like Tokyo where everything is built up to the sky and wall-to-wall, greenery be damned. Japanese people by and large don't view their homes as investments but more as an expense so the incentives aren't there to drive housing prices ever higher.

This is a lot different in the West where housing is most people's primary asset of worth. And unlike Japan, a country comprised of a homogenous group who is also highly collectivist, the West is a lot more heterogenous ethnically and culturally and individualistic. So NIMBY-ism is a lot stronger here.

Texas is a bit different from cities like Toronto and SF because none of its cities were ever densified and people there had always valued space and despised government interference and red tape - so it ended up with a lot of sprawl. I suppose Alberta would be more analogous to that.

Housing is very regional so the national government has comparatively little power to increase the housing supply. Regional municipalities have a lot more power but who's their voting base? Incumbent homeowners.

[Dutchball97]

Quinten Post is the first Dutch player drafted in 15 years. Hopefully this is a start of a trend with more Dutch players making it to the big league and we don't have to wait another 15 years before someone manages to sneak into the end of the 2nd round again.